Michigan loses House seat, state population declines
Michigan will lose a seat in Congress after being the only state to experience a population drop-off over the past decade, the U.S. Census Bureau said Tuesday.
Results of the 2010 census show the number of Michigan residents fell by 0.6 percent since 2000, officials said. As a result, the state's U.S. House delegation will decrease from 15 to 14. That continues a decline since 1970, when the state had 19 representatives.
Experts say the culprit was a deep, decade-long recession that sent many residents to other states in search of jobs. The loss of a House seat will hurt Michigan's clout in Washington and also will reduce its share of funding for federal programs such as highway construction, education and health care.
"We were actually hoping to be up just a touch, so it's a slight surprise," said Curt Weiss, spokesman for the Office of Management, Budget and Technology, which led a campaign to get Michigan residents to participate in the census. "It's disappointing that the economy has hurt our growth."
Michigan's population was 9,938,444 in 2000, and a Census Bureau estimate last year put it at 9,969,727.
The state's loss of a seat will add further intrigue to the process of redrawing congressional districts, which takes place after every census. The task is handled by the state Legislature, which will be under Republican control for at least the next two years. The incoming governor, Rick Snyder, is also a Republican.
That means the GOP will have the upper hand in fashioning a district map favorable to its candidates. A likely scenario would merge two majority-Democratic seats in southeastern Michigan, forcing the incumbents to run against each other or retire.
Dropping a seat erodes Michigan's clout in Congress, a problem that may be partially offset by the presence in key positions of lawmakers such as Rep. Fred Upton, who becomes chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee next year, and Rep. Dave Camp, incoming chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
But census numbers are also used to allocate federal funds for a variety of programs, including highway construction, education and health care for the needy. Michigan's poor showing in the census will shrink its share of the pie.
"It's just been a bad decade for the industrial Midwest as a whole, and Michigan has borne the brunt of it," said William Frey, a Brookings Institution demographer.
U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, issued a statement today saying the release of the Census figures marks a new challenge for Michigan.
"It is my sincere hope that as the maps are being redrawn, they are done so in a way that best serves the interest of Michiganders and not the interests of political parties," he said. "In 2000 and other years, the maps have been outrageously partisan and indifferent towards what is best for the people of Michigan. I hope that Michigan’s state Legislature and all those involved with redistricting rise above the partisan fray and put the people of Michigan first."
Dingell said he looks forward to working in the next Congress to turn around Michigan’s population loss and fighting to improve Michigan’s economy. He noted the data collected by the census is used to distribute more than $400 billion in federal funds to local communities.
AnnArbor.com reporter Ryan J. Stanton contributed to this report.
Comments
Steve Hendel
Wed, Dec 22, 2010 : 1:10 p.m.
"That means the GOP will have the upper hand in fashioning a district map favorable to its candidates. A likely scenario would merge two majority-Democratic seats in southeastern Michigan, forcing the incumbents to run against each other or retire." It would be clearer to also mention that virtually every district's boundaries will have to be redrawn to equalize their sizes.
DonBee
Wed, Dec 22, 2010 : 11:13 a.m.
Until we see the county by county numbers and know where the people actually are, we do not know what the likely changes are to the districts. Just based on the number of closed stores - Detroit and the UP both lost population. Normally the re-districting starts in the UP and works south (e.g. District 1 is the whole of the UP and a big chunk of the Northern Lower Peninsula). I would expect that District 1 will get larger and stay north of Lansing. The big question will be what happened in Southeastern Michigan, if Wayne, and Macomb counties lost population, then the loss of the district will probably happen there. It is too early to know what will happen. In a few weeks we will have more data to crawl through.
michaywe
Wed, Dec 22, 2010 : 10:37 a.m.
Dingell is OK with "...outrageous partisan...." gerrymandered district's when he benefits. Remember Lynn Rivers??????
David
Wed, Dec 22, 2010 : 9:50 a.m.
It would be helpful to add the actual Census count of 9,883,640 to the fifth paragraph which currently states: Michigan's population was 9,938,444 in 2000, and a Census Bureau estimate last year put it at 9,969,727.
GRANDPABOB
Wed, Dec 22, 2010 : 6:52 a.m.
Most of these knocking unions and other stuff are probably buying foreign autos, and then can't understand why the jobs left Michigan. BUY AMERICAN Just because a foreign car is assembled in America doesn't make it American made.
stunhsif
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 10:01 p.m.
righteousewinger said: "Is anyone surprised? Does anyone think people moved INTO Michigan for the weather? They used to come here for work, but Democrats and unions took care of that. Instead, people are leaving for work, and Michigan weather sucks as much as ever. Keep voting Democrat, and your home values will be measured in pennies by the time of the next census." Agree 100% but you have left out one other massive obstacle to why companies do not locate in Michigan and that is "ergonomics". It makes no sense to do consol and distribution in this state at all given the fact that truckers must run an additonal 200 dry miles to make it work and face the union garbage they do face. It is no wonder that Columbus,Cleveland,Chicago and Cincinnati are kicking our behind on this business!
81wolverine
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 8:13 p.m.
I agree with Topcat. Time for Dingell to move on to the retirement village. The first thing out of his mouth on the news of the population loss relates to partisan politics rather than lousy job the politicians have been doing running the state for the last several decades.
L. C. Burgundy
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 6:28 p.m.
"It is my sincere hope that as the maps are being redrawn, they are done so in a way that best serves the interest of Michiganders and not the interests of political parties," [Dingell] said. "In 2000 and other years, the maps have been outrageously partisan and indifferent towards what is best for the people of Michigan. I hope that Michigans state Legislature and all those involved with redistricting rise above the partisan fray and put the people of Michigan first." --- What Mr. Dingell is really saying: "Please don't make me kick another sitting Democrat down the stairs so I can keep a deathgrip on my seat." Good luck with that with an R Senate, R House, R Governor, R Supreme Court, R AG...
Sully
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 5:30 p.m.
Due to geography, demographics and (in the case of Detroit) federal law, Benishek, Camp, Amash, Huizenga, Upton, Clarke and Conyers are most likely safe, though I can see Upton and Conyers getting serious primary challenges. The rest depends on the final numbers and what the sitting Congressmen decide to do. At least one of Rogers, McCotter, or Miller will run for Senate, leaving an open seat. It sounds like Dingell is ready for another term, but Kildee and Levin could be ready to hang it up, which could change things.
blahblahblah
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 5:26 p.m.
Look at the bright side, it could have been worse, if it were not for the current level of negative home equity which has rendered many households immobile for the time being.
Sallyxyz
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 4:06 p.m.
"We were actually hoping to be up just a touch, so it's a slight surprise," said Curt Weiss, spokesman for the Office of Management, Budget and Technology, which led a campaign to get Michigan residents to participate in the census. "It's disappointing that the economy has hurt our growth." Is this guy kidding? "We were hoping to be up just a touch?" When you lose hundreds of thousands of auto jobs over a decade, what do you expect? "It's disappointing that the economy has hurt our growth." Of course the economy hurt the population growth. Why else do people move in or out of a state? Even retirees who seek warmer weather have to look at economically healthy states to move to, and not just focus on the weather. As a retiree, moving to a warmer state that is in deep financial trouble and has a high unemployment rate is a recipe for trouble in retirement, with high health care costs and high taxes to follow. People are leaving Michigan because there are few jobs, the state is in financial difficulty, budget cuts are everywhere, and the weather is...well...questionable, at least to those folks who don't care for winter. (And with the cuts in snow removal, winter will be tougher for everyone and more dangerous.) Cuts, cuts, cuts. That's all we hear in Michigan. Why would anyone want to stay here if they have options to leave? Kids come here for the universities and then leave. Working age folks with the means to move, have moved on to look for jobs in better places. Retirees who want to lower their cost of living and enjoy warmer weather have moved on, if they can sell their homes. No surprises there.
sbbuilder
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 4:01 p.m.
I find Mr Dingell's statement disengenuos at best. If you look at his district, it conveniently punches up the the NW corner to include, SHOCK! SURPRISE!, Ann Arbor. Without the votes he gets from this town, he would be out of a job today. And, his idea of helping Michigan is to bring Federal funds to our State. How about bringing jobs here, Mr Dingell. We don't want the damn fish, we want to know how to fish, the ability to fish, the chance to fish. We don't want to be at the end of Federal handouts. We want to get up in the morning and go to work. Detroit deserves to loose a seat because that is where the majority of population loss has come from. There's too many congressmen from this part of the State, anyway.
xmo
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 3:55 p.m.
Isn't it wonderful to live in a state where the population is declining? Now maybe we can cut our Government to match our population, lower our taxes to match the smaller government and maybe really work on attracting businesses for our unemployeed. Sounds sort of like a "TEA Party" platform for the next election.
Top Cat
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 2:08 p.m.
Putting all the old blame games aside, the question going forward is how to put Michigan in the 10 top states where people want to keep a business, start a business or move a business. Pushing out one of our aging Congressmen for life is an opportunity and a blessing in disguise.
worldchamp
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 1:49 p.m.
Forever27, if you want a little regulation and a little fair trade, I take it you would like a "Right to Work" state here in Michigan..........seems fair to me.
Forever27
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 1:43 p.m.
@L.C., you're right, those Democrats pushed for failed economic policies as well. Just because they have a "D" or "R" next to their name it doesn't make them any more correct or incorrect. However, on the whole, the Republican party has been a larger proponent of Laissez Faire economics, which as I said, is a failed philosophy. Now I'm not suggesting and complete protectionist approach. However some regulation and fair trade would do some good.
worldchamp
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 1:34 p.m.
After reading the story I had noticed that they have failed to mention that the great State of Michigan is the only state in the United States to lose population. A reduction of 31,268 people. I do not blame this on Jennifer Granholm, John Engler or George Bush. I blame it on the people who aren't sure how to utilize our state to attract business......which bring jobs. To all: Merry Christmas and lower our taxes
L. C. Burgundy
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 1:31 p.m.
Forever27, believe what you will, but the real losses have been in blue SE Michigan territory. Fact. We've had a D governor and D house for almost of the prior the past decade. If you don't believe me, look at the numbers yourself. Total votes cast in 2010 House general election contests, from least to most: 127,076 - Clarke (D) (Even the hotly contested primary with Cheeks-Kilpatrick drew a grand total of just 57,856) 174,608 - Conyers (D) 198,696 - Upton (R) 202,263 - Kildee (D) 204,117- Levin (D) 208,309 - Dingell (D) 224,063 - Amash (R) 224,354 - Camp (R) 225,269 - Walberg (R) 228,078 - Huizenga (R) 232,037 - Benishek (R) 233,930 - Miller (R) 238,287- McCotter (R) 244,894 - Rogers (R) 252,650 - Peters (D) (closest House race in the state)
righteouswinger
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 1:15 p.m.
Is anyone surprised? Does anyone think people moved INTO Michigan for the weather? They used to come here for work, but Democrats and unions took care of that. Instead, people are leaving for work, and Michigan weather sucks as much as ever. Keep voting Democrat, and your home values will be measured in pennies by the time of the next census.
Forever27
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 1:14 p.m.
failed laissez faire economic policies leads to fewer available jobs. Fewer jobs means fewer people will live here. When the Republicans redraw the districts they will ensure that the very people who champion these failed policies (Republicans) will solidify their hold on Michigan. But I'm sure Granholm is responsible for it all somehow.
L. C. Burgundy
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 1:10 p.m.
Depending on how the districts are redrawn, a D such as Levin could still be sacrificed to Conyers' district. Looking at the maps again, I think the most likely result is Levin v. Peters. An all-R state government is not going to delete an R like McCotter when it's not really necessary. If there was no Voting Right Acts issues, an obvious primary would be Clarke-Conyers. If you just look at voter numbers over the past decade or so, Conyers' district especially is running increasingly thin on voters.
InsideTheHall
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 12:59 p.m.
Andy - It will be Conyers - and the former Cheeks Kilpatrick seat. Schuette will on duty and will take the case to court that the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. When you break down where the population loss has occurred it is in those two districts. Why should the rest of Michigan be penalized when the population loss occurred elsewhere? This will be a landmark lawsuit to eliminate "protected" districts for a given class.
Andy
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 12:51 p.m.
L.C. - it will be either Peters v. Levin, Peters v. Kildee, or possibly Peters v. McCotter. They can't eliminate Conyers' district because it is majority-minority so it would violate the Voting Rights Act.
stunhsif
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 12:40 p.m.
Good, hope the gain goes to a "red" state!
L. C. Burgundy
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 12:39 p.m.
Although I would do almost anything to see a Conyers v. Dingell primary matchup in 2012, but I think it's more likely to be Gary Peters v. Conyers matchup after the districts are redrawn.